Wojtek wrote:
>The critique of the eminent domain by the likes you just mention amounts to
>the latter days Luddism - knee-jerk opposition to capitalist innovation on
>the grounds that it hurts "the people."
-You call it knee-jerk opposition. Black Commentator finds related -questions complicated enough to merit a five part series, Part 4 of -which concentrates on Wal Mart and the inner city: -http://www.blackcommentator.com/91/91_cover_cities.html
The fight on Wal-Mart in Chicago and other places is related but a somewhat separate issue from issues of home rule power of cities. In fact, states are looking to strip cities of the power to block development in a number of ways on top of limiting eminent domain powers.
I worked with ACORN on the campaign to block Wal-Mart there; in fact, I drafted the city council legislation that would have required Wal-Mart to pay a living wage and provide health care to all its employees. While the legislation didn't pass, it got enough support to make Wal-Mart back off entering the city, as this piece by ACORN and other leaders in the fight note: http://www.socialpolicy.org/index.php?id=848
But a lot of cities have no power to impose minimum wages on employers. Across the country, various states have passed legislation stripped local governments of powers to impose minimum wages locally, arguing that they aren't competent to make such legislation. One reason I am so hostile to the eminent domain laws are they are all part of a rightwing trend of state governments stripping local governments of powers to control private property and businesses locally.
New York City, for example, itself has no power to impose minimum wages, which means it couldn't pass similar legislation to the Chicago bill, even though there was a more united movement. The "fair share" health care bill passed was a useful approach, but it gives Wal-Mart or other big retailers a lot more freedom to shift around dollars and not really help its employees. And Georgia last year stripped the city of Atlanta of the power to even give preferences to businesses doing government work on contract that pay a living wage. Any sweatshop has to be given a city contract or development funds with zero power by the City to demand decent wages or other social benefits for the community.
So the trends are no towards states encouraging progressive urban development but rather in stripping local governments of any possible tools to restrain corporate power.
Nathan Newman